Bishop Hill Reactions to Leo
Mar 30, 2012 Climate: MetOffice Climate: Sceptics Climate: other A couple of Richard Betts' Twitter exchanges in response to Leo Hickman's article on climatologists talking to sceptics are interesting. Firstly this one with paleoclimatologist Kevin Anchukaitis, who tweets as ThirstyGecko.
Anchukaitis: Hopefully the Met Office had actual paleoclimatologists on hand for their 'conversation' with these folks?
Betts: Yes, Martin Juckes and Tamsin Edwards. Jonty Rougier also joined us.
Anchukaitis: I was thinking more along the lines of the people that develop the actual data
Betts: Apart from the obvious question of distance, would you have come?
Anchukaitis: Sure, not for the skeptics, but rather the statisticians ;) That is, always better to have both sides of the field there
Betts: Martin did a pretty good job!
Anchukaitis: I'm certain he did! My point is, always good to have the people that developed the data in the room too.
And then this one with Gareth Jones, who I think may be Met Office.
Jones: We had 2 interesting speakers this week @ed_hawkins and Alan Robock. Nice to hear scientists and not chartered accountants views on science.
Betts: Sure, but you could have explained to the chartered accountant why you disagreed - I think he rarely gets this!
Reader Comments (131)
Mac said:
Don't flounce off, unanimity is overrated.
I finf the communications dripping with hubris.
Re: anonymity (and several comments above regarding same):
Some of us have darned good reasons for posting anonymously. Me, for example! I work at an FFRDC here in the US. One of my conditions of employment is that I must follow all rules regarding "speaking to the public" about any potentially controversial issue. Specifically, only those employees who both have been through the internal "dealing with PR and the press" training and also have been designated as approved organizational representatives are permitted to opine publicly about anything that could possibly be considered taking an organizational position. And a "speaking only for myself in my private capacity" disclaimer is considered to be insufficient distance from "could possibly be considered to be stating an organizational position."
The upshot of this is that any post I make on any subject that could possibly be controversial must be made pseudonymously. I'm not allowed to post under my own name, unless I want to put the comment through a 90-day release review process.
As an aside: Yes, that policy is almost certainly overkill -- it's virtually certain to be an illegal intrusion on my private opinions and capacity (especially when it comes to political speech). That said, is it really worth suing my employer to get the policy changed?
HuhneToTheSlammer
Absolutely not! I could name half-a-dozen and I'm talking personal knowledge not the names that crop up on here.Some of them are brilliant and very self-effacing but there are a lot around who believe that their super-intelligence qualifies them to be chairmen of local political organisations, secretaries of sports clubs, treasurers (in my experience the most catastrophic of all!). As committee people they hog the floor and at least half the time spout ideas that even the cretins like me can see have not chance of being realised in practice and boy, can they take umbrage if you suggest they might just not be 100% correct in all particulars.
They are a minority but the damage they can cause is out of all proportion to their numbers!
Mind you, I know a few with arts degrees that are just as bad!
I am not "trying to engage" Richard B and Tamsin for example. Or Pielke Jr. They are people, and me too, so it's just natural we exchange opinions without thinking the Other is an Agent of Satan. There is literally nothing to try. It's part and parcel of being human.
Instead, whoever tries to engage with me, is treating me like a subhuman at best. And still more do consider me an Agent of Satan, non-human by definition and so unworthy of being spoken to apart than in an insulting manner.
"Sod off" to both of these groups is the only answer, thank you very much.
Maurizio (for it was he): very deep point. But with my sociolinguistic conciliation hat on I'd read the "trying to" as lazy language for the difficulty we all have of transcending tribalism. Plus the genuine cost to some of doing so, on both sides. The need to deal with others different to us that seem to represent a threat to our own career advancement makes the untermenschen option more attractive than any of us would like to think. One could think it's ironic that such denigration is most often expressed in the word 'denier' - I've always seen it as a sick joke based on the devilish reversal of the truth. "Sod off" is I agree a shorter to make the same point :)
I fail to see where this gets us anywhere.
I find it surprising that their token "conversation" with Skeptics is in the safety of their own (publicly funded) ivory tower. Surely if they were serious in their attempt to communicate, they should engage in public debates. This window dressing will not impress the public and the reputation of climate science will continue to slide further down.
Richard Drake I agree that tribalism is not good for anyone. And I would also add that if we do really want to improve the situation then there is no point in asking how we got here, but rather how we get to a better place. That is what my head says. But somewhere I hear a voice telling me that we, you and me and many others in this world, have been subjected to a campaign of deception; and that many many people have suffered needlessly in the name of mitigating the supposed effects of CO2. Those responsible for spreading and perpetuating the myth have a very heavy burden to bear. And something inside me says they should be held to account. Not easy. Definitely not easy.
"So if a young guy dreamed of becoming a real climatologist (poor bastard), how would he go about it?"
My advice, as far as it goes, would be to study hard in high school and go to Georgia Tech and study under Judith Curry.
Richard,
You are probably unfairly harsh on Mac. We've gone the anonymity stuff many times. I think you need to give a serious, fair look at the whole thing.
Ironic I suppose, putative climatologists getting career advice from a Mr. Geiger. It's German for fiddler. Not many people know that ...
Pointman
Re tribalism: they started it, and it's they who peddle it. Refusing to debate while projecting the same on sceptics who actually want a debate. Refusing data requests; refusing to withdraw flawed papers, or even allowing debate on flawed papers in the journals, while trying to get anyone who even accommodates sceptic views fired and or sidelined, so the team can win the PR battle.
Are we supposed to let all this dirty water under the bridge so we can not be accused of tribalism by the culprits?
There seems to be an unhealthy level of cognitive dissonance in the warmist camp, as if non of the tribalism can be laid at their door. They still seem to think it's a communication problem, not a problem with the scientific method.
A good question, one that makes you pause and think, or challenges an accepted view, or shows great insight, is a good question reagrdless of who asked. Anonymity is irrelevent to this, only the question is important.
On the Hopeful Fudging thread the other day I asked Richard Betts a whole series of what I consider reasonable and important questions concerning models. No answer. Perhaps Richard Betts never saw them. So I reposted twice on unthreaded and no answer. Perhaps Richard Betts never saw them.
Anyone who looked at those questions please tell me whether they were good or bad questions? Does my anonymity make them less relevent?
Dolphinhead
What we have failed to establish is the extent to which "the other side" has subjected us to a campaign of deception. Some of them at least believe what they are saying and I am inclined to include some of our bogeymen in that. (I'm not prepared to say which ones because it is not relevant to the point and would most likely drag this thread way off topic.) Others, I am fairly convinced, may well have started out with the best of intentions but along the way have become committed to a cause which they believe to be a positive way forward for mankind. I think they are mistaken and misguided but not dishonest except insofar as they are prepared, if necessary, to "finesse" (let's be polite!) some of the facts to move towards what they see as a desirable end.
The rest are easily identifiable. Their dishonesty permeates every word they speak or write.
I will listen carefully to those who genuinely believe that the world is warming in a way which may cause us problems in the future and believe that CO2 is a substantial, if not major, player because I believe them to be honest and it is possible that they may be right.
The second group I will debate with.
There is no point in trying to debate with the third group because there is nothing I can say that will change their minds. And that is because they are the ones who have been engaging in deception campaigns because their motives have nothing to do with either the good of mankind or the state of the climate but are concerned only with their own egos and a desire to control.
Forget about calling them to account even if that were a desirable objective. The succesor to global warming is already on the shelf just waiting to be dusted off when the current scare is over because even if the science is right most people know that mitigation is nigh-on impossible and the sacrifices we are being expected to consider will become patently ridiculously cripplingly expensive.
So a new scare (biodiversity? sustainability?) will be launched with the same aims and the same sacrifices demanded for similar reasons.
As some contributors here will recognise: "same tattie; different shore".
If you know exactly why you're here in the blogosphere, which I do, then any move, peace overture or otherwise, has to be considered in the light of your own motivation for being here. Worst case; it's not an honest move, so it can be ignored. Best case; even if it's honest, will it address your concerns? If yes, then fine. If no, keep on struggling.
We've all got to make our own minds up on that one.
I respect the courage of anyone, of what we would call of the warmist persuasion, who's decided to come into the lion's den, and you're to be commended for that, but to my mind, you're just the acceptable face of something I've spent years fighting. I wish it was different but it ain't.
Pointman
ThinkingScientist
Yes we have noticed your respectful requests for Richard Betts to comment on Dr Norman Page's Feb 5th 'landmark' post, and that his comments are still pending.
Richard Drake
There are many varied personal reasons for using the blog convention of an anonymised commentator name and particularly so 3 or 4 years ago when politically encouraged 'action' against scepticism reached a crescendo (see Peter Sissons autobiography. When One Door Closes, p 301). Most of us realise that this is only superficial anonymity, unless great IT skill has been invoked. In fact, most of us would freely offer our full identity and contact details on a bona fide request, and there is a facility on the sidebar for contributors to do so, or alternatively through contacting the Bishop. And the great majority of us in my opinion comment in this forum well within the bounds of robust but contained civility. Indeed, a great deal more so than many of the most popular political blogs on the sidebar here.
On Reactions to Leo
I do not use twitter, because I dont even do texting, and hate mobile phones, but I have been sneaking a frequent look at the Bishop's tweets and some of his tweetees. It is amazing to realize how just a few words can be so revealing about the characters of the personalities involved. I think it is the twitter contact which led to the 'accord' between The Bishop and Leo Hickman: not so much a rapprochement but more in the way of respect as in two duelling fencers. The Bishop is very cool, very sure, with his strikes. And that commands instant street cred respect, even from the foe who would not hesitate to strike back given any and every opportunity.
Yeah the guy was parading his ignorance with ignorant pride.
I think I remember that the accountant in question has a degree in a subject that I would categorise as hard science.
I am very much in favour of engagement with the AGW crowd wherever they come from, and Richard Betts and others are to be congratulated for making the effort - I am sure he realises that many sceptics don't actually have two heads, although probably some do.
BUT in many ways whether some of you like it or not MAC has a point. I was told by a fairly reliable source about 9 months ago that expressing any sceptical view in the Met Office was a disciplinary offence. I have no idea whether that is true or not - but I made the comment in the discussion thread on "Questions for the UKMO" . Richard was on that thread and I asked him whether it was true - I don't recall seeing an answer. Forgive me if you did answer Richard and I missed it.
If you turn up for a job interview at the Hadley Centre, it would be no good expressing a scientific interest in something that doesn't support the CO2 theory, there never has been since its inception. The team that pointed out the UV variation in the Sun's output last year are probably on a yellow card. They started with the idea that man warmed the planet and only believers in cAGW are likely to work there. I would have thought that was dangerous for any science, the debate is never over.
I think we all know that both sides tend to do some name calling and a bit of team banter - I personally avoid social networking and given some of the quotes I see, others would be wise to do so.
As for the culture of some of these climate scientists - I can only conclude that Richard Feynman would have just laughed in their face. They break every tenant of the scientific method as he described it. They should remember that as he said "as a scientist the easiest person to fool is yourself".
ThinkingScientist I went back to the Hopeful Fudging thread and checked out your questions. All very good. Very reasonable. My own position on models is that it is not possible to model something as complex as the weather systems of the planet earth that make up our global climate. The more so when we do not understand all the drivers of climate. An exercise in futility. Just think of all the useful things we could have done with the money wasted on models. A new aquatics centre at Filey, just for starters.
I tend to agree with Mac rather than the typical pompous Tory hype of R Drake. Can you have a dialogue with a Muslim fanatic? No. Of course you can't and neither can you have a dialogue with people equally as bent on a particular point of view, CAGW.
ThinkingScientist
Apologies -I fear I was confusing you with lapogus's repeated requests.
Dolphinhead, thanks for the affirmative support. I know Richard Betts has been on this thread, but maybe he hasn't had the time to check out those questions, or maybe he hasn't seen these later comments on this thread. Understandable, of course.
Or perhaps its because my questions are posted under a pseudonym. I suppose it could be the questions are not very relevent, or silly. Or it could be that they are just a bit too direct and might be uncomfortably close to the mark. Unless Richard sees the questions and responds, we cannot know which it is.
Pharos - no worries.
I take a middle road. After Waterloo, the European heads all gathered together and hammered out a compromise, which led to a relatively long and peaceful period in European history. The people who hammered out that treaty have very bad names these days - Metternich, Talleyrand, Castlereagh, etc and you will struggle to find supporters of them even now. But they let Europe recover from a long period of warfare and disruption. It wasn't until the Prussians (on the winning side in 1815!) decided that "might made right" that the compromise broke down. But even then, the conflicts were local....until 1914.
Compare 1919 and the Treaties of Versailles/Trianon, etc......where the victors were intent on extracting flesh. 20 years later, an even more convulsive conflict took place. That took until 1991 to work through the system and still subsists in deep areas of the Russian psyche.
So, I would say that when rapprochement is offered, sincerely, then take up the offer. The emphasis is on the sincerity of the rapprochement. i am afraid that Hickman does not strike me as sincere.
Pharos / Thinking scientist - been too busy to comment on any threads recently but still lurking when I get a chance. Just to say that Richard Betts did eventually see one of my requests for his take on the comment by Norman Page, and did give a response, albeit partial, (and not on the original thread).
I will try to find the URL.UPDATE - Here it is on the page 3 of the March 5th New Solar Paper thread. I reposted Dr Page's comment about 1/3rd down the page. Richard's response is near the foot.Mar 30, 2012 at 9:04 PM | retireddave
Not at all - their work is very highly regarded. In fact they were on Horizon the other day!
BTW thanks Lapogus for pointing out that I did respond to Dr Page's comments as raised by thinkingscientist!
I think I still owe Green Sand a response. I'll try to do this next week (will be offline this weekend).
Cheers
Richard
Mar 30, 2012 at 3:39 PM | C Gilbert
Thanks very much for this supportive and insightful comment!
We do indeed all have our own opinions and make our own choices on who we talk to. Gareth Jones clearly has a different view to me on this particular matter, but that's completely his choice. I'd like to point out that I regard him as an excellent scientist who does great work in understanding the drivers of climate change, both human and natural. On one of the discussion threads here I was asked about the work of Leif Svalgaard, and I went to Gareth for advice on whether he was credible - his response was yes. If I had a technical question on attribution of climate change, I'd either ask Gareth or Peter Stott.
BTW "Ms Edwards" is a Doctor..... :-) I just thought I'd mention that because you used my academic title instead of calling me "Mr Betts"!
I'm sure that Gareth is an excellent scientist when his opinion is asked for by one who he takes as a peer. His attitude towards those he classes as 'non-peers' makes him unsuitable for the role he's paid for.
Well, that was that.
Pointman
http://library.metoffice.gov.uk/search~S18/X?SEARCH=((METSCI)+and+(a:%22Jones%20G%22))
The bet is on at tug-a-war,
Rich, hard and devious no bar.
Dialogue,
It's a blahg,
Open mouth, no shame, an honour.
============
Gareth Jones most definitely Met Office .....
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/gareth-s-jones
As I missed it at the time I am referring here to Richard Betts' comment on the "New Solar paper" thread (5th March "The bottom line is that even if global CO2 emissions peaked and then began to decline very soon, atmospheric CO2 concentrations would not fall anywhere near so rapidly - CO2 would remain near current levels for many decades" (5 March 2012 5.27 pm).
However it is a fact that on average since 1958 no less than 56% of annual total emissions of CO2 from burning of hydrocarbons and alleged land use change have been absorbed by the biota of the oceans and the land and by the oceans themselves.
In 2009-2010, total emissions amounted to 34 GtCO2, of which only 12.6 GtCO2 (2.6 ppm) remained airborne in the atmosphere, and 21.4 GtCO2 p.a. were absorbed by the oceanic and terrestrial sinks. So “even if global CO2 emissions peaked” the atmospheric concentration would fall by 21.4 GtCO2 p.a. (cet.par.), or 4.4 ppm p.a., and by 2037 the atmospheric concentration would be back at the glorious pre-industrial level of 280 ppm that sustained a global population of less than 1 billion.
So one would like to see Betts’ explanation of why “CO2 would remain near current levels for many decades”.
Back in 2007 The Royal Economic Society's Newsletter published a short piece of mine that showed how quickly atmospheric CO2 declines to the pre-industrial level if global absorption of atmospheric CO2 continues at the present rate after emissions cease, it's at my website www.timcurtin.com
- see "An overdue letter from Albert Einstein to President Bush". It asks whether rapid reversion to 280 ppm would be a good thing.
Mar 30, 2012 at 1:52 PM | Rhoda ... I'm thinking along your lines.
This all smacks so much of 'community engagement' process ... y'know the type your local council or government engages in as a smoke screen to claim that they have consulted with the great unwashed masses and that the oppression soon to be levied upon them is for their own good.
We argue ridiculous semantics about this "forcing" and that "radiative direction" when the real game is taxation and control. Whatever the truth of 'climate science' it means precious little to the outcomes of the most preposterous notion that mankind can manage Nature. It is laughable that we cannot even discern the impact of human created CO2 in the atmosphere from the natural occurring portion ... the best one can say is that they're just guessing ! C'mon, they can't even predict tomorrow's weather with their 'sophisticated' software and gazillion$ super computer ... any old yachtie can do a damn side better with a barometer and a thermometer.
Forgive me as I'm only read to masters level but the joke is on us.
Streetcred
Best be careful with such radical thoughts! Mygawd man, they will send the black helicopters for you!
But I really doubt one needed a masters degree to come to those conclusions. Anyone capable of rational thought would do the same. What amazes me is how few there are. Of particular interest to me is that the Bishop -- who appears to have no "scientific" training -- was nevertheless capable of writing a very well researched and reasoned book on the subject. It is, in my opinion, the equal of many Ph.D. theses I have seen. I would nominate him for a honorary degree if I could find a university not tainted with the group-think of climate disaster. Perhaps in time his contributions will be recognized. I hope so.
Rhoda
I agree with Streetcred in regard to your observations. My particular gripe with the ClimateScientists™ is that they have little or no knowledge of basic physics, statistics, the scientific method, mathematical modeling or even data sampling. One even admits that Exel is beyond him.
However, my real gripe is the one raised by Streetcred which is the money our political leaders are collecting from us and spending on wonderful things like "Climate Control".
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4230734/Horror-as-fuel-hoarder-Diane-Hill-is-torched.html
Panic over Climate Change
Panic over buying Petrol
What have they both got in common
The word PANIC
Get well soon Diane best wishes
HuhneToTheSlammer -
i have answered your question re the Royal Navy Admiral touring the US with Admiral Gun on CC, on the previous thread. btw it is Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, see link at the other thread.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/13/climate-change-committee-quangos
Talk of Francis Maude minister for Gerry Cans i found this from last year
Thankyou, Pat - I was wondering if I would know him, which I don't - never even heard of him - will look him up in the Navy List.
7:26 AM | jamspid
I knew when Maude was given a cabinet position that this government was rotten. When Huhne goes to the slammer, my next pseudonym will be MaudeMustGo (apologies to Richard Drake ;)).
Well im truely sorry to be mean
But the woman is responsible for her own actions and it was a tragic accident
But this is another example of when Politicians get it badly wrong
Ive seen someone catch themself on fire and third degree burns and not very nice
I saw someone look inside the fuel tank of a genarator once with an old fashioned parafin lamp to see if there was any Diesel left in it
Twenty of us dived for cover
And the bloke next to him kick him out the way and broke the Tilly Lamp
Why HSI banned Parafin lamps and use Halogens
I would not want to be Francis Maude waking up to this story this morning
Im a team leader at work and have to carry out proper saftey proceedures with my staff and our customers and i resonsibilities
Once again get well soon Diane and best wishes for the future
I think Francis Maude made a genuine mistake and should quietly resign
Save his reputation and his conscience and let the woman recover in peace
RE: Richard Betts:
"BTW thanks Lapogus for pointing out that I did respond to Dr Page's comments as raised by thinkingscientist!."
I think there is some misunderstanding. The questions to which I don't think there has been a response (apologies if there has and please point me where the response is if they have) were on the Hopeful Fudging thread 21 March 2012. They are copncering models and the questions are:
1. Do you choose a baseline date in which you have many observations for the model intialisation or do you use a range of modern era dates for model initialisation? The latter would make the fit in the present look rather good.
2. How can you be sure that there is sufficient data at the chosen initialisation time and how sensitive are the model runs to initial conditions?
3. If you add just a few extra data points to the intialisation state, how much difference does it make to the run?
3. Are the models actually run backwards (time step negative)?
4. How many parameters are available to be adjusted in a typical GCM? Here I am thinking of the more arbitrary and perhaps less physical parameters such as "increases in aerosols 1940 - 1970" or similar?
5. Is it possible to get a good fit to data by adjusting the parameters referred to in (5) whilst neglecting the CO2 warming effect?
6. Is it possible to get a good fit to data by removing the strong positive feedback of water vapour?
7. How do you update the models to get a good fit on hindcast now that the historical temperatures have been made colder again in the latest global temperature series and the slope of temperature change over the C20th has increased as a result? Which parameters would be changed to make this fit?
As someone who works with complex models in my day job I have both a natural and professional interest in these models. I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but I think these are important and relevent questions to the issues of explaining the models and the conficence that should be placed on their quality.
I have no doubt that Gareth is an excellent scientist, but like in any organisation, their are those you keep away from the customers or public, because they are not excellent communicators...
ie if youthink soemone is a complete lunatic (ie sceptic) you don't say so.. let alone put a comment like that in your bio!! especially if part of your role is 'deal' with the public on sceptical, contrarian issues.
A high % of members of the public are as least as well educated as those with phd's at the MET office or other academic institutions, with considerable experiecne (broader) in the world of business/politics and industry and industry science.. I do think academic scientist forget this..
It is those that seem to get quite irritated with the practices in climate science, which would be impossible in the private sector.
ie graphs like the 'accelerated' IPCC one would be laughed out of the room.. AND a huge question mark placed on the people that produced it.. In much the same way as Prof Muller reaction to CRU/Mann, etc on the 'Hide the Decline ' issue...
Yet I've only heard vague words of 'misleading' frm UK scientists... and that is only after pushing and pushing quite (too?) hard for a responses.. with one or 2 saying why can't you let it go, so we can move on...
Which shows the problem.. until all these types of issues are dealt with satisfactorily to that educated public... there will be no moving on.. and trust will continue to fall for a small branch of science...
Mar 31, 2012 at 4:51 AM Tim Curtin
The CAGW view is that CO2 hangs around for a long, long time. If it did not, then the CAGW hypothesis would have to be rejected at once.
See "Nature Reports Climate Change" Carbon is forever for more on the Official View.
If I might presume to answer for Richard Betts... Richard kindly answered a query of mine along the lines:
Richard referred me to the IPCC report
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html#table-2-14
It gives the impulse response as (I've written it out for better readability):
0.22 + 0.26 exp(-t/173) + 0.34 exp(-t/18.5) + 0.19 exp (-t/1.19)
I have severe reservations about this impulse response function - which implies very long (+infinite) lifetime for CO2. :
1. As a final year engineering undergraduate, I studied the analysis and synthesis of linear passive RC electric circuits in as much depth as possible. If you assume linearity, such circuits are exact dynamic analogies of the "box models" used to model CO2 absorption. The form of impulse response given is not physically realisable by a passive RC circuit.
Reading the papers referenced by the IPCC, one finds that the quoted impulse response was obtained by simulating the "Bern model" for CO2 and approximating the simulated response by a sum of exponential functions. This is how the Bern model's authors' preconceptions about the form of the impulse response were built into the result. It is not an impulse response obtained by direct solution of the differential equations of a model.
2. I've started doing some analysis for myself using the levels of atmospheric carbon 14 following the ending of atmospheric nuclear testing (which, in essence, injected an impulse of 14C into the atmosphere). (I am sure I am merely duplicating what I have no doubt has been done previously and in more depth and with more rigour than my efforts.)
My results so far say that a dollop of CO2 disappears as a simple decaying exponential, with a time constant of around a decade. This implies that a first-order linear differential equation suffices to describe the dynamics of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Having read the emails (or because of innate arrogance if you prefer) I have more confidence in something I have worked out for myself than I have for something from an IPCC report.
3. The book "The Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon refers to the IPCC impulse response, produced from models and refers to thirty-six studies based on measurements, all of which give average lifetimes far, far shorter. For the IPCC "models trump measurements".
For these reasons I reject the IPCC result.
The IPCC's task was to find evidence for AGW/CAGW. Reports that say "CO2 disappears quickly" are not referred to by the IPCC reports.
When "climate science" one day gains respectability, one aspect that will have been re-done is the study of the dynamics of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Mar 31, 2012 at 6:55 AM Don Pablo de la Sierra
Huh? He has a degree in chemistry - which I assume means he knows a lot more about quantum mechanics, electron orbits, etc than you (I presume) or me.
Apologies All,
This may have been resolved on earlier threads, but has Richard Betts commented on where he stands on the paleo, in particular the Mann reconstruction and the "unprecedent" decadal temps claim?
I'm sure he thinks the Bishop's visit was worthwhile and that he made some interesting points, but does he accept there is adequate reason to be "sceptical" of the "unprecedented" claim. It would be nice to think that Richard viewed the exercise as more than a good bit of PR -selling the MET office as "objective observer" in contrast to CRU/Mann/Hansen etc.
I'm sure this has been asked before, but does anyone know?
Martin A,
A facinating and elegant study of atmospheric CO2 absorbtion - did you publish it, and if so, have you a reference? I can not imagine why it has not been done before.
Like you, I would much rather rely on measurements, rather than models or extrapolation. As the CAGW hypothesis rests upon both a temperature and a CO2 hockey stick, the oft quoted figure of 280 ppm for a pre-industrial CO2 concentration is central to the argument. However, this relies on ice core measurements, which some (myself included) think could be a flawed methodology. Alternative data from direct chemical measurements (http://blum.home.cern.ch/blum/Studie/Dok/Klimakritik/CO2-weitere-Messgn.pdf) tell quite a different story - that current CO2 levels are not unnatural over the last 180 years.
Trick stuff, this CO2.
Re: Pseudonyms.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for people to use pseudonyms, as long as it is career dowsing to be a sceptic. I don't believe Dr Betts when he says being a sceptic at the Met is ok. As long as grant propositions start with "the successful applicant will show global warming on xyz", then guess what they will.
On global warming I comment with my real name, because I don't think it's that big a deal in my professional life. But on politics, I can't, it's not "allowed", and I'm talking mainstream governing party politics here, nothing even remotely fringe. In fact there are some way out wacky parties I could support if I wanted to, because they would be the "right" colour.
I suppose what that says is that some professions have become too mono political. I remember when the French national broadcasters' journalists changed with every alternation of the party in power. They put the old crop in the "closet" (that was the name for it, cos it was the size of their new office), and brought their own back out. Now they would be hard put to find opposing ones, they are all left wing. Never thought I would miss that time! Personally I think the current flap on News International in the UK is in fact a putsch on right wing (or perceived as so) news outlets. I notice they are now gunning for The Daily Mail. If they get that, they will go for The Telegraph.
Roger
"Trick stuff, this CO2."
Indeed. The fact that current measurements are derived from an observatory on the slopes of the world's largest active volcano bothers me slightly, too. Are there any comparative measurements made anywhere else, and if so, how do they correlate?
Gareth Jones's disdain for the Bishop says a lot more about him than about our host, IMO. It doesn't sound like he's even heard of THSI, let alone read it.